Noted for its robust defence of press freedom in India, the Editors Guild of India found support from a somewhat unexpected quarter recently, in a legal case that has far-reaching implications for journalism in the country. Taking serious note of the charges levelled against four members of the guild by Manipur Police, the India Supreme Court issued an order last Wednesday, instructing that no coercive actions be taken against them. Accused of actions ranging from promoting enmity between different groups to defamation and criminal conspiracy, the guild members now enjoy legal protection against the formal complaints – known in India as First Information Reports (FIR).
The crux of their ‘crime’ revolved around a guild report, published on September 2, which criticised the local Manipur media’s handling of a particular issue, labelling it “one-sided.” As a result of this, the FIRs lobbed
at the guild members were centred on accusations of instigating disharmony. In the wake of this developing legal saga, the supreme court bench, spearheaded by the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, has inhibited the Manipur Police from taking coercive action against the guild members ahead of a hearing slated for September 11.
On another front, the report has elicited a direct response from none other than the Chief Minister of Manipur N Biren Singh, who denounced the discourse of the Editors Guild of India’s fact-finding team, proclaiming that they had committed crimes against the state. The criticism was based on Singh’s assertion that the report failed to accurately portray the reality in Manipur, notwithstanding the guild’s investigative mission on the ground that spanned four days. The supreme court, however, found merit in the petitioners’ argument that Singh’s remark constituted a genuine threat, prompting them to concede that this case merits further consideration.
The guild’s report was straightforward in its criticism of Manipur’s internet ban, holding it as detrimental to media reporting. It also challenged what it claimed to be lopsided reporting by certain media outlets. Conclusively, it appeared to take a direct swipe at the state government for its alleged partisan position during the ethnic conflict, thereby contributing to the vilification of ethnic minorities and promotion of the majority Meitei community.
Further coverage and developments relating to the case can be found here.